71% of Americans Oppose Higher Gas Taxes, Kerry,Graham & Lieberman Intend to do Just That …

Gas prices are already on the rise and now Senators Kerry (MA-D), Graham (SC-R), and Lieberman (CT-I) want to increase the price of a gallon of gas with a new tax. Brilliant. The three are about to unveil their bill on April 26, I guess the Three Amigos did not get the global warming scandal, climate hoax, junk science memo.

71% of Americans are opposed to increasing gas taxes. Hardly a shock, especially during a slow economic period. This is the last thing that hard working Americans, who are still employed, need is a further drain on their wallets.

Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are getting ready to introduce a bill in the U.S. Senate that will impose dramatically higher gas taxes, which 7 in 10 Americans oppose according to a new American Solutions poll.

71% of respondents oppose higher gas taxes (sometimes called “linked carbon fees”) in order to limit greenhouse gases, while 78% believe that higher gas taxes will either kill jobs or have no effect on job growth.

Meanwhile, 84% of all adults and 61% of independent voters have very little or no confidence that a fuel tax will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Why would anyone support such a bill where not only does an overwhelming majority of American believe it will not affect greenhouse gasses at all, but also the electorate will not vote for a candidate who supports such measures.

The poll also found that 64% of all adults are less likely to support a candidate for Congress who supports a gas tax, and 67% of independent voters are much more likely not to support a gas-tax candidate.

Can I just say that South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is probably one of the biggest disappointments in the GOP. South Carolina deserves better and the next time he is up for election, the GOP might want to think of running a conservative to Represent a conservative state like SC.

I guess the Three Amigos also missed the recent Rasmussen poll, 59% Say Scientists Disagree ‘Significantly’ Over Global Warming.

MSNBC’s Matthews Offended When Rush Uses Term “regime” About Obama but not Saying Republicans Like Rubio Taking Part in ‘Stalinesque’ Purge of GOP

If it’s MSNBC and Chris Matthews … it most be more insane MSM hypocrisy.

Regime bad, Stalinesque good … it all depends on whether the liberal MSM is talking about Republicans or carrying the water for Obama and Democrats.

This is why the liberal media has lost all credibility and MSNBC has no audience. Recently Chris “I get a thrill up my leg” Matthews stated that he was offended when Conservative Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh referred to the Obama Administration as a “regime”. This was supposed to be damaging rhetoric that might insight violence.

CHRIS MATTHEWS TEASER AT TOP OF SHOW: Also Republican purge. Arlen Specter is out. John McCain, Charlie Crist and Robert Bennett are all being threatened on the right. Is this anyway to run a party or run it into the ground?

MATTHEWS: Coming up what happens to Republicans who don’t march to the right wing tune? Well they’re getting purged. This is Stalinesque, this stuff.

I guess Matthews missed the part that the Democrat has gone far LEFT and we have the most liberal, “Marxist-esque” President ever.

However as reported at News Busters, Matthews had no problem referring to Republican Primary Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubeo as follows … “Republicans Like Rubio Taking Part in ‘Stalinesque’ Purge of GOP”.

On Tuesday’s Hardball Matthews charged that conservatives challenging moderates within the Republican Party (like Marco Rubio versus Charlie Crist in Florida) was akin to Joseph Stalin’s violent purges in the 1930s, as he teased an upcoming segment this way: “Coming up what happens to Republicans who don’t march to the right wing tune? Well they’re getting purged. This is Stalinesque, this stuff.”

Purging? I guess it makes no difference to Matthews and the LEFT that Rubio is crushing Crist in the Republican Primary polls. Rubio is also far ahead of Democrat Meeks in the polls as well.  Even in a three way race for the US Senate seat, Rubio wins. Some like McCain have come out openly and stated they will not support Crist if he runs as an independent in a 3 way race.

Matthews, as usual, missing the point and it  is not the GOP that is so-called purging these people, it is the American voters. It gets kinda comical after a while for a leftist loon like Matthews to be formulating any type of analysis with regards to the direction of the Republican party when there is such an obvious bias. No CRED here.

Indiana Senate Election 2010: REP Coats 54%, DEM Ellsworth 33% – REP Hostettler 50% , DEM Ellsworth 33%

The Republicans seem to have the Indiana US Senate seat all but locked up as both GOP candidates Dan Coats and John Hostettler both have huge leads over Democrat Brad Ellsworth, 54%-53% and 50%-33%, respectively, in the most recent Rasmussen poll.

Following his vote for the national health care plan, Democratic Congressman Brad Ellsworth’s support remains stuck in the low 30s, while two of his Republican opponents now earn 50% or more of the vote in Indiana’s U.S. Senate race.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Indiana finds that 65% favor repeal of the recently passed health care law. Just 29% in the state oppose repeal. Those findings include 56% who strongly favor repeal versus 21% who strongly oppose it.

With Democrat Evan Bayh retiring and the Hoosier state being strong against Obama care as 65% of Indiana voters want to repeal the law … Republicans look to flip yet another US Senate to the side of the GOP. Indiana US Senate will be Republican after the voted are counted for the November 2010 midterm election.

Will Obama Give Back the $994,795 from Goldman Sachs or Keep $’s from Company He Sues Claiming Fraud?

Hmm … Will Barack Hussein Obama give back the campaign contributions of $994,795  to Goldman Sachs? Show us the money.

If Obama’s SEC is going to vote 3-2 along party lines to sue Goldman Sach’s, wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to return the ill-gotten booty?

Now that it’s been disclosed that the SEC commissioner’s vote to sue Goldman Sachs for fraud came down to a party line vote, the action takes on the appearance of a vehicle to advance a political agenda. But there is a lot more to this story than just that. As Felix Salmon noted, Goldman should have seen this coming. Granted, Goldman poured a ton of money into the Democrat’s coffers during the past decade but apparently they weren’t paying much attention to what their money was buying during the past sixteen months.

Right, wrong, Left or indifferent … It would seem that if Obama’s Administration thinks Goldman Sachs did some thing illegal, would not it be the “hope and change” thing to do to return the money? If The One is going to rail about Wall Street Finance reform, the least he could do is put his wallet where his mouth is.

Show us the money Barack!

UPDATE I: Goldman Sachs hires ex-Obama White House  counsel Gregory Craig.  Of course it is just a coincidence that the charges were leveled against Goldman Sachs at the same time Obama begins his Finance reform. Just like with the health care reform bill, there is never any politics involved with this stuff, Obama is just doing it for the People.

UPDATE II: Is Goldman Sachs Obama’s ENRON?

Interesting question, what’s bad for the RIGHT, should be bad for the LEFT. Too bad there was not an honest media to report.

Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.

But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama’s $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That’s also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well.

It would be fair to say that the total amount the Obama administration has received from those affiliated with Goldman Sachs is ten times that of what Bush received from Enron.

How does the “Hope & Change” President keep campaign money from a company that his Administration sues? Is he going to act all indignant and demonize Goldman Sachs and Wall Street and then keep their money? We shall see …

If we thought the timing of the law suit was suspect with regards to the Obama Finance reform bill, how about the fact that Obama is using the issue to also raise money. I guess he will have to supplement the coffers to pay back Goldman Sachs. Yes, this is a disgrace.

Barack Obama Interupted By Pro-Gay Hecklers at DNC Fund Raiser … How Come Obama Did not Tell Them They Should say “THANK YOU”

Once again Barack Obama is incensed by the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech …

It would appear that Barack Obama has found more people who critique his job performance as President. This time it was the gay rights portesters who heckled Obama and interrupted him numerous times during his fund raising speech for Barbara Boxer.

A group of gay rights activists disrupted President Obama’s speech at a fundraiser here for Sen. Barbara Boxer Monday night, decrying what they describe as Mr. Obama’s inaction on overturning the military’s ban on gay service members and calling on him to submit repeal language to Congress.

The activists interrupted Mr. Obama in the middle of his remarks to high-value Democratic donors during a reception at the California Science Center, with one protester shouting from the audience, “What about ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell?’”

Mr. Obama yelled back, “We are going to do that.”

Real Clear Politics has the VIDEO.

Just curious President Obama, why didn’t you tell the gay rights protesters to shut up, sit down and say thank you seeing that you were for “don’t ask, don’t tell”? What is the difference between dissent from gay activists and the Tea Party? All dissent is created equal, is it not Barack Obama?

If Obama was consistent, he would have told Gay activist protesters that they amuse him and they should be telling him Thank You. After all, isn’t Obama for gay rights, don’t ask don’t tell and a litany of pro-gay issues? Obama did not ask them to say thank you, but he did get irritated. But pro-gay hecklers were drowned out by the “yes we can” Obama plants.

“When you got an ally like Barbara Boxer and you’ve got an ally like me who are standing for the same thing, then you don’t know exactly why you have to holler because we already hear you.”

Obama stated he was for it and you should be telling those who oppose it not him. Actually Barack, you are the President, the buck stops with you.

Michelle Malkin could not have worded it any better, it’s not about the color of your skin Mr. President, it’s about the thinness of it.

Touchy, touchy, touchy. Guess President Obama couldn’t tell the gay hecklers who interrupted his DNC fund-raising speech to sit down and shut up. Because that would be, you know, intolerant and hateful and all the things he accuses the Tea Party movement of every day.

Instead, the thin-skinned commander-in-chief snarked: “I’m sorry, do you want to come up here?”

Real Presidential … “Barbara and I are for don’t ask, don’t tell  … I don’t know why you are hollering”.  It’s called Freedom of Speech Mr. President.

Barbara Boxer in Trouble in Cali US Senate Race … Barack Obama Warns Boxer Could Lose

Desperate words from a desperate candidate.

California US Senator Barbra Boxer finds herself in a battle to retain her Senate seat. Just the other day she begged her supporters to get excited like the Tea Party folks. Rather interesting choice of words seeing that Boxer had nothing good to say about the Tea Party in the past.

So why the angst on the part of Boxer? Suddenly she finds her self in the fight of her political career as Republican challengers like Tom Campbell are a real threat to take the CA US Senate seat.

Barack Obama uses the “L” word and we do not mean liberal …

What is the possibility that Boxer and the Democrats could actually lose in California? As reported at Breitbart, during a campaign fund raiser the other day President Barack Obama told California Democrats that  “their liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer might lose her re-election race unless they work hard for her campaign”.

Obama delivered the stern warning Monday evening in Los Angeles at the first of a trio of fundraisers for Boxer and the Democratic Party.

Boxer is seeking a fourth term and has won big in the past in Democratic-friendly California. But she’s facing a more difficult political environment this time around because of the shaky economy.

Obama says that all incumbents are in danger because of the economic environment, though he says it’s turning around.

You know it is bad for Democrats when they are in trouble in a liberal state like California. How much money will Democrats have to spend in the up coming elections to defend territory that was always considered safe and a sure thing? Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts last year proved that with the mood of the country, no seat maybe safe for Democrats in 2010.

Caylee/Casey Anthony Case: Judge Strickland Steps Down

Orlando, FL– The Honorable Stan Strickland has recused himself at the request of the defense team, anchored by THE BAEZ LAW FIRM and recent roster addition, J Cheney Mason.

Read the rest at Blink on Crime:

Liberal Geraldo Rivera Mocks Tea Party: Marches Across by Kimberly Guilfoyle Show With “Cash for Stash” Sign

Obviously, Geraldo Rivera is not a fan of the Tea Party movement as he mocked them during the Fox News Kimberly Guilfoyle Show by marching across the set with a “Cash for Stash” sign and “Be Fair to Facial Hair”.

When is Fox News going to rid themselves of this lib? Please let his contract be coming up soon? It is one thing to have his own show, which we can choose not to watch, it is another thing when he inflicts his liberalness on another’s show.

Hey Geraldo, don’t you have a gangsta’s safe to locate?

(Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit)

PEW Research Center: Distrust, Discontent, Anger of the People Toward Government at All Time High

THE PERFECT STORM OF WE THE PEOPLE’s DISCONTENT …

From the PEW Research Center, 22% polled say they can trust the government in Washington almost always or most of the time. This is one of the lowest measures in half a century. 19% says they are “basically content” with the federal government.

By almost every conceivable measure Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government – a dismal economy, an unhappy public, bitter partisan-based backlash, and epic discontent with Congress and elected officials.

Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation’s problems – including more government control over the economy – than there was when Barack Obama first took office.

Although Congress approval ratings are at record lows, Obama does not get off the hook either by those polled. Only 40% say that Obama is doing a good job as President.

While job ratings for the Obama administration are mostly negative, they are much more positive than the ratings for Congress; 40% say the administration does an excellent or good job while just 17% say the same about Congress.

This does not bode well for the party in power or any one on the anger political hit list. Maybe Bill Clinton would like to revise his prediction?

Former President Bill Clinton Predicts Democrats Will Hold House and Senate

Former President William Jefferson Clinton on ABC’s  This Week predicted  that the Democrats will hold majorities in the House and Senate following the 2010 midterms. With all due respect Mr. Clinton you also stated that “you did not have sex” with that woman Monica Lewinsky and look how that turned out.

Despite growing discontent among conservatives, the former president told ABC’s “This Week” that he doesn’t think Republicans will be able to pull off the kind of congressional takeover they engineered under his watch in 1994.

“I don’t think they will win either house, no. If history is any guide, they should make a few gains, but I don’t expect them to win in either house,” Clinton said.

Clinton likened the political atmosphere in the country to the mood after he signed his economic plan into law, but predicted the backlash would not be as severe.

“I think the dissent is just as intense, if not more intense, but I think the outcome of the election is likely to be far less dramatic than it was in ’94,” Clinton said.

So let’s get this straight, Clinton says that the political mood and climate in the country is similar to that of when he was in office in 2004 when the Republicans had sweeping take overs in the midterms, but some how it will be different for Barack Obama. Clinton likened the discontent of Obama’s health care plan to his economic plan.

The two-term Democratic president suggested the discontent is due in part to a lack of understanding about the benefits of the recently signed health care law, which he compared to discontent over his economic plan.

Read more